Guinta v. Guinta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guinta v. Guinta

124 A.D.2d 708, 508 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62013

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 708 (Guinta v. Guinta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guinta v. Guinta, 124 A.D.2d 708, 508 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[709]*709Special Term’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs cross motion for modification of the divorce judgment was not improper since the cross motion was not timely interposed or on the court’s calendar. Similarly, no evidentiary hearing was required on the defendant’s application as some of the relief sought was consented to, this case did not involve a question of whether the plaintiff was guilty of contempt, and the plaintiff did not specifically oppose the request for a counsel fee. Finally, the delay between the court’s oral decision and its signing of a written order does not warrant reversal. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[709]*709Special Term’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs cross motion for modification of the divorce judgment was not improper since the cross motion was not timely interposed or on the court’s calendar. Similarly, no evidentiary hearing was required on the defendant’s application as some of the relief sought was consented to, this case did not involve a question of whether the plaintiff was guilty of contempt, and the plaintiff did not specifically oppose the request for a counsel fee. Finally, the delay between the court’s oral decision and its signing of a written order does not warrant reversal. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 708, 508 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guinta-v-guinta-nyappdiv-1986.